Why is religion so fascinated with homosexuality?

[Unveiled Artist]

I see, it also is the definition of "person," for the me a person is distinct from their acts and from their nature, and one can love a person but desire their acts to be changed (for example how my mother loved me but wanted me to do better in school, no one would say this was a lack of love or loving only part of me, for they recognize the distinction between person and acts). It would be interesting to see how these ideas came about through history and developed, for there has been a divergence here.

Another example that LSHS isn't good is when conservative churches don't allow homosexual priests and pastors.

The Catholic church says priest can't identify as homosexual and insure there are thousands who take up ministry positions and vocations.

There is no stipulations in love and no redefining a person to where because of his attraction he can't take up some ministry duties.

It goes deeper than genuine respect for someone different.

 

[Yazata]

I'm not convinced that most Christians are "fascinated" with homosexuality.

As for those for whom homosexuality is one of their big issues, it's probably for much the same reason the social left is obsessed with "racism".

Most people have things that they support and other things that they oppose for moral reasons. People might disagree about what those should be, but the tendency to cast moral judgments seems to be pretty universal with human beings.

 

[Faithofchristian]

So as we natter away (yet again) in another thread about homosexuality, I'm curious about something: why are religious types, especially conservatives, so interested? Why do they care so much?

Here's a little quote from a gay priest, Malcolm Johnston, in his book "Diary of a Gay Priest: The Tightrope Walker:"

"It is condemned. It is expressly forbidden in Scripture...Four General Councils forbid it, Luther and Zwingli weighed in against it, and until recently it was distasteful to most people. What is it? Lending money at interest."

Shakespeare created one of his greatest villains (Shylock) based on the practice of taking usance (interest). Jews prospered all over the Christian world because kings and nobles needed to borrow money, but their own subjects, unable to charge interest, were unwilling to spot them large sums.

So why aren't conservative Christians railing against lending at interest?

American Christians were loathe to give up their slaves -- claiming it was permitted, even encouraged by Scripture. But they gave them up eventually, but long, long before they were willing to give up their hatred towards gays.

Even though Jesus couldn't even be bothered mentioning the subject!

So, Christians -- enlighten us. Why is this topic so important that it occupies so much of these forums?

That's a great question..
This may sound a little strange coming from a Christian myself....but as it is..I am not like other Christians nor do I belong to any church or religious organizations...

I believe Christians have no clue or idea what their Bible actually does say...
But yet Christians will go to church and set there listening to their Pastor, Preacher that is just as much a sinner as they are..

So Christians goes around trying to convince other people of their faults..
All the while Christians can not see their own faults..
Like Jesus Christ did say..
If the blind lead's the blind..both shall fall into the ditch..
Also do not judge someone by their faults.
All the while you have faults of your own..
As it is..Christians as a whole are being miss lead in the churches..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My heart says I want to grant you all that. My heart and brain says there might still be something to this God thing that I don't understand. Care/harm is not the only pillar of morality you know? I honestly believe those 3 things you mentioned could degrade society. What about the morality of the herd?

Although I wish you had used another word than "herd," that is in fact an extremely good question. And it needs a very thoughtful answer -- so I am not going to give you a glib one. I think we might even find a way to some common ground.

But in order to not do a cheap job, I'm just going to point out something about human nature that I think is extremely important, then reserve the rest of my answer until I have more time.

We are a "social species." Humans need and totally rely on our relationships with others of our kind for our very survival. This is true of other social (or better, "eusocial") animals on our planet. And yes, we are a eusocial species.

But we are different from all the other eusocial critters we share our world with. Ants, bees, termites -- they can't behave otherwise than they are programmed. The soldier defends until (s)he dies. The bee stings in response to a threat, even though it necessarily means her own death. The queen (important sounding job!) lies there and lays eggs endlessly which can't be much fun.

But you and I -- though we know how much we depend on other humans -- we can default. We can cheat, reneg in playing our cards. There's a cost, but we're intelligent so we think we can calculate our odds of getting a bigger payoff than the cost.

And we can be -- so much unlike other social species -- individual! And what we find, if you look at the history especially of the modern world, that when we learn to let each of us be who we are, and contribute to the "herd" (as you put it) in our own way, then every member benefits -- the whole gets "richer" (not meaning money necessarily, but in terms of overall societal benefit).

True morality requires that you think about all of that. Do I need you to pay your taxes, as I do? Certainly! That benefits us all. Do I need you to like the same art that I do? Of course not -- there's art enough for everybody. So do you need me to make babies (I'm way too old, anyway)? Not at all -- there are more than enough of us doing that.

So you can think about this: what is it about how other people express their sexuality that is important to YOU? What makes my life with my lover a "moral" question for you, anymore than what makes you life with whomever you love a "moral" question for me? Because I can promise you, I haven't spent a moment of my life wondering about what your love life is like.

I think you need to spend a little more time thinking about what "morality" really means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry but theocracy is a valid option of government, as is mixing it with other stuff. In fact theocracy would theoretically be the best form of government.

No, it isn't and no, it wouldn't be.

Legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed. Theocracy is completely opposed to this principle; theocracy cannot be legitimate.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

So as we natter away (yet again) in another thread about homosexuality, I'm curious about something: why are religious types, especially conservatives, so interested? Why do they care so much?

Here's a little quote from a gay priest, Malcolm Johnston, in his book "Diary of a Gay Priest: The Tightrope Walker:"

"It is condemned. It is expressly forbidden in Scripture...Four General Councils forbid it, Luther and Zwingli weighed in against it, and until recently it was distasteful to most people. What is it? Lending money at interest."

Shakespeare created one of his greatest villains (Shylock) based on the practice of taking usance (interest). Jews prospered all over the Christian world because kings and nobles needed to borrow money, but their own subjects, unable to charge interest, were unwilling to spot them large sums.

So why aren't conservative Christians railing against lending at interest?

American Christians were loathe to give up their slaves -- claiming it was permitted, even encouraged by Scripture. But they gave them up eventually, but long, long before they were willing to give up their hatred towards gays.

Even though Jesus couldn't even be bothered mentioning the subject!

So, Christians -- enlighten us. Why is this topic so important that it occupies so much of these forums?

Religion is a man made construct to control large groups of people, and persecute all those who don’t belong, while simultaneously claiming to be persecuted. (Specifically talking about Christianity)
Religion also needs a bad guy, or gal. Homosexuality is the bad guy du jour.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Well let me state for the record that that may not always be bad.

Would you like another's religious views voted in? Why not get some Islamic laws passed? That's okay, right?

 

[Suave]

So as we natter away (yet again) in another thread about homosexuality, I'm curious about something: why are religious types, especially conservatives, so interested? Why do they care so much?

Here's a little quote from a gay priest, Malcolm Johnston, in his book "Diary of a Gay Priest: The Tightrope Walker:"

"It is condemned. It is expressly forbidden in Scripture...Four General Councils forbid it, Luther and Zwingli weighed in against it, and until recently it was distasteful to most people. What is it? Lending money at interest."

Shakespeare created one of his greatest villains (Shylock) based on the practice of taking usance (interest). Jews prospered all over the Christian world because kings and nobles needed to borrow money, but their own subjects, unable to charge interest, were unwilling to spot them large sums.

So why aren't conservative Christians railing against lending at interest?

American Christians were loathe to give up their slaves -- claiming it was permitted, even encouraged by Scripture. But they gave them up eventually, but long, long before they were willing to give up their hatred towards gays.

Even though Jesus couldn't even be bothered mentioning the subject!

So, Christians -- enlighten us. Why is this topic so important that it occupies so much of these forums?

I rarely talk about it. The fact is though, homosexuals are coming after us Christians. We're being targeted. I say live and let live; but homosexuals are becoming militant at this point and purposely target Christians. They go to a Christian baker and try to force him to make a gay wedding cake when they know he isn't going to because it's against his personal faith.

And that's wrong. Homosexuals also are targeting children. They want to teach Christian's children that Christianity is bad and homosexuality is right. So when homosexuals start coming after us; then that's on them. We'll fight back for sure. Why don't they try these tactics against Muslims? Because they know the result. They are scared of Muslims so they leave them alone. They should be scared of us Christians too. Not because we're going to blow ourselves up or anything but because we will make them pay in political, legal and monetary ways that the won't like. Christians will stand up for themselves more and more. We will resist the more we are pressed into a corner and forced to resist.

Other than that we don't care. I don't care what people do in their bedroom just don't try to force it on me.

To me it's no different than other sins in the Bible like fornication; sex outside of marriage. It's none of my business. I believe in freedom for all and live and let live. I don't hate gays lol. That's ridiculous.

I seriously doubt our Holy Scriptures are whatsoever concerned about homosexuality outside of the ancient Israel's Holy Temple... I'm guessing the The Old Testament's mention of homosexuality is in the context of ancient Temple Priests.' sexuality. I don't concerned myself with any sacred Covenant between Yahweh and the Priests of the ancient Israel. As far as the New Testament goes,I don't consider everything written by Paul to have been divinely inspired. What matters to me is if our Lord Jesus Christ considers homosexuality to be immoral. Since He never himself condemns homosexuality, I as a decent human and as a Christian socialist, have no qualms against homosexuality.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Why are non-Christians so obsessed with what Christians are obsessed with?

At least in America, it impacts policy. It was only 2015 that gay marriage restrictions were federally removed in the states.

 

[Lain]

I'm a bit flipped flop on actions vs. identity. My sexuality, artistic passion, things I do that defines my identity (if that's the correct way to phrase it), and things like that is what I'm working on in a spiritual sense. I found I can't really sit and pray/meditate myself into awakening but have to do something and it just "flows" type of thing. So, if my friend says they don't like my actions, that's fine. I don't like a lot of people's actions. If they define me "by" my actions according to their morals that's what I disagree with. For example, you can say you dislike same-sex sex but that's totally different than calling me a sinner because you define homosexuals as people who have same-sex sex. My actions with people I love isn't seen as sinful as straight couples likewise, so it's a catch-22 with that. Not something I'd defriend a person for unless they bluntly insult me but they wouldn't be my best friend because their values redefine me.

When it comes to religious values I'm getting more the impression our actions put in the wind (if one likes) somehow influences our future actions and we reconcile the leftovers of our past to reconcile ourselves in the present. So actions are very important and I've experienced this. So it's hard to hear a friend say "the way you love your significant other (instead of wife) is a sin." If I were christian I'd be deeply insulted.

This is just my opinion, though. Sometimes people's values clash so much it would be near a difficult to be more than an everyday friend.

I'd say that acts reveal a person, which is why the Lord Jesus said "if you do not believe the words believe my works." So you are right that it is related, but as you also said here it ultimately just goes to a moral issue. People do not feel criticized (in a deep way) when someone says they are doing bad works and this reveals a deficient personhood if that critique is coming from the same "moral sphere" that they already have, but when it doesn't it will feel insulting, weird, or out of left field.

Too far of a value gap I'd agree it is impossible to be friends, for "every man loves those closest to himself."

 

[robocop (actually)]

Although I wish you had used another word than "herd," that is in fact an extremely good question. And it needs a very thoughtful answer -- so I am not going to give you a glib one. I think we might even find a way to some common ground.

But in order to not do a cheap job, I'm just going to point out something about human nature that I think is extremely important, then reserve the rest of my answer until I have more time.

We are a "social species." Humans need and totally rely on our relationships with others of our kind for our very survival. This is true of other social (or better, "eusocial") animals on our planet. And yes, we are a eusocial species.

But we are different from all the other eusocial critters we share our world with. Ants, bees, termites -- they can't behave otherwise than they are programmed. The soldier defends until (s)he dies. The bee stings in response to a threat, even though it necessarily means her own death. The queen (important sounding job!) lies there and lays eggs endlessly which can't be much fun.

But you and I -- though we know how much we depend on other humans -- we can default. We can cheat, reneg in playing our cards. There's a cost, but we're intelligent so we think we can calculate our odds of getting a bigger payoff than the cost.

And we can be -- so much unlike other social species -- individual! And what we find, if you look at the history especially of the modern world, that when we learn to let each of us be who we are, and contribute to the "herd" (as you put it) in our own way, then every member benefits -- the whole gets "richer" (not meaning money necessarily, but in terms of overall societal benefit).

True morality requires that you think about all of that. Do I need you to pay your taxes, as I do? Certainly! That benefits us all. Do I need you to like the same art that I do? Of course not -- there's art enough for everybody. So do you need me to make babies (I'm way too old, anyway)? Not at all -- there are more than enough of us doing that.

So you can think about this: what is it about how other people express their sexuality that is important to YOU? What makes my life with my lover a "moral" question for you, anymore than what makes you life with whomever you love a "moral" question for me? Because I can promise you, I haven't spent a moment of my life wondering about what your love life is like.

I think you need to spend a little more time thinking about what "morality" really means.

Great post,

Again, as I've stated, I don't understand the link between theocracy and homosexuality very well.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No, it isn't and no, it wouldn't be.

Legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed. Theocracy is completely opposed to this principle; theocracy cannot be legitimate.

The governed could request it.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Would you like another's religious views voted in? Why not get some Islamic laws passed? That's okay, right?

If I were born Muslim, I would pretend to be Muslim or actually be Muslim if converted.

I don't know if Islam is the correct religion or not. I believe it is the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I do not have a problem with some Islamic laws getting voted in. I am on my third reading of the Koran.

 

[robocop (actually)]

At least in America, it impacts policy. It was only 2015 that gay marriage restrictions were federally removed in the states.

There's what I want and then there's what I don't understand about God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The governed could request it.

A democracy made up of religious people (all of the same denomination, apparently) is very different from a theocracy.

The whole point of a theocracy is that it's "God" - or more accurately, a group of religious elites who speak for God - who decides and not the people.

 

[robocop (actually)]

A democracy made up of religious people (all of the same denomination, apparently) is very different from a theocracy.

The whole point of a theocracy is that it's "God" - or more accurately, a group of religious elites who speak for God - who decides and not the people.

Good points.

It would have to come from God directly and God would be in charge of conversion.

 

[firedragon]

So as we natter away (yet again) in another thread about homosexuality, I'm curious about something: why are religious types, especially conservatives, so interested? Why do they care so much?

Here's a little quote from a gay priest, Malcolm Johnston, in his book "Diary of a Gay Priest: The Tightrope Walker:"

"It is condemned. It is expressly forbidden in Scripture...Four General Councils forbid it, Luther and Zwingli weighed in against it, and until recently it was distasteful to most people. What is it? Lending money at interest."

Shakespeare created one of his greatest villains (Shylock) based on the practice of taking usance (interest). Jews prospered all over the Christian world because kings and nobles needed to borrow money, but their own subjects, unable to charge interest, were unwilling to spot them large sums.

So why aren't conservative Christians railing against lending at interest?

American Christians were loathe to give up their slaves -- claiming it was permitted, even encouraged by Scripture. But they gave them up eventually, but long, long before they were willing to give up their hatred towards gays.

Even though Jesus couldn't even be bothered mentioning the subject!

So, Christians -- enlighten us. Why is this topic so important that it occupies so much of these forums?

I was thinking about this question a lot. Just today I was watching a programme about a gay prince in India coming to England trying to find love. His first outing was a gay choir. It was great to watch. But once he gets back to India starts his actual life. He does not have a life. Because he is gay he cannot have a real life but a public life only.

I think in the Christian history homosexuality has always been a taboo, always, and eternally. I know there are some changes now. And it is true that something like usury is not even spoken of. Both being sanctioned death penalty. What I find something to ponder over is why the New Testament has no punishment or condemnation of usury whatsoever while the OT condemned it with death. Is it that through time usury was becoming more associated due to association but not homosexuality?

Good question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good points.

It would have to come from God directly and God would be in charge of conversion.

Not even then.

As I said, legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed. For God to be the legitimate ruler of the state, he would have to get a mandate from the people in some way.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Not even then.

As I said, legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed. For God to be the legitimate ruler of the state, he would have to get a mandate from the people in some way.

Then let God get a mandate from the people.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's a sin that is strongly forbidden in scripture. It's not anything special.
I think it's because it's obvious unnatural that it gets attention.